From ...
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: Off topic: FSF, Emacs and XEmacs (was Re: help! absolute beginner)
Date: 1998/12/17
Message-ID: <3122861705479499@naggum.no>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 423149163
References: <871zm9i623.fsf@piracy.red-bean.com> <3122309940941584@naggum.no> <863e6mopnj.fsf@g.pet.cam.ac.uk> <3122429737934433@naggum.no> <3675D070.A9786474@flash.net> <3122685146348197@naggum.no> <36781dcf.6493477@news.newsguy.com> <3122774512682606@naggum.no> <87d85kih7j.fsf_-_@2xtreme.net> <3122837945282209@naggum.no> <871zlzvcws.fsf@2xtreme.net>
mail-copies-to: never
Organization: Naggum Software; +47 8800 8879; http://www.naggum.no
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
* cbarry@2xtreme.net (Christopher R. Barry)
| I guess you think using "Stallmacs" to refer the the FSF maintained
| version of Emacs is somehow deragatory, and I didn't know that you would
| take it in that sense, because I didn't mean to attack it or anything.
then why not call it by its name? notice that the problems started when
the XEmacs crowd called their Emacs version just that. users everywhere
have serious problems talking about Emacs as opposed to XEmacs because of
_their_ name. so those who think XEmacs is entitled to usurp the name
space choose some other means to refer to Emacs, such as "Stallmacs",
which I cannot fathom how you can even believe is _not_ derogatory --
think about how you came up with it, why you cannot call Emacs by its
name, and what the real problem is. OK?
and if you know about the history of XEmacs and Emacs at all, you would
_know_ that the stupid name collision is one of the contentious points.
and of course I assume that people aren't completely ignorant when they
ask about contentious issues.
| I'm not really an XEmacs proponent.
well, _excuse_ me for thinking that one looks, walks, and quacks like a
stupid XEmacs proponent is one. my patience with that kind was exhausted
years ago. there's a reason I don't talk about XEmacs. deal with it.
| I have both ACL 5.0 and CMUCL on my machine here, and (until very
| recently) I used ACL 5.0 99% of the time. I'm now using CMUCL slightly
| more, but have yet to really form any opinions about really favoring one
| over the other. And if I did, and said that I say, like CMUCL more, but
| not specifically downtalked ACL 5, and also wanted your opinion as
| someone that has worked with some of the ACL 5 sources, would that have
| also made your blood boil?
if you found cause to use a derogatory name for either of them, sure.
incidentally, I'm not aware of any comparable hostility between ACL and
CMUCL that you seem to take for granted or ignore between Emacs and
XEmacs -- you just _can't_ compare two things without understanding
whether they have similar natures at all.
BTW, XEmacs has another good thing going for it that I forgot besides
getting MULE right (that is, the ability to compile without it): it is
not scheduled for conversion to GUILE, which I consider to be another
serious mistake in the FSF camp. all the language version chaos that
reigns in Emacs Lisp and especially between XEmacs Lisp and Emacs Lisp is
not getting any better with a language that has serious growth problems
built into it. my first reason for wanting a Common Lisp Emacs was that
it would have a stable language underneath it. trying to keep a lot of
Emacs customization working is a lot more work than it should be, and
I'll wager a bet that this is _because_ it is free software and there
aren't very many reasons to do the boring work of maintaining a stable
and a development release and actual specifications people can trust.
#:Erik
--
Attention, Republican members of the House Judiciary Committee! We have
intercepted a coded transmission from Bill Clinton to Saddam Hussein that
puts your life in jeopardy. Clinton is prepared to cease fire if all of
you are killed by Iraqi terrorists, whom he won't prosecute. Be warned!